Marital status changed consistently with increase in age of the subjects. The percentage who were married was 0 in subjects who were in their twenties, 50 in subjects who were their thirties, 94.4 in subjects who were in their forties, and 98.1 in subjects who were in their fifties.
Income also increased with age. Of the subjects who were in their 20 s, 81.4% earned 2–3 million won per month; of those in their 30 s, 78.7% earned 2–3 million won per month; of those in their 40 s, 66.7% earned between 3 and 4 million won per month, and of those over 50, 61.5% earned over 4 million won per month.
The most common ‘highest education level’ generally with subject age. Of subjects in their 20 s, 55.9% had only finished high school (55.9%); for those in their 30 s, 62.3% had graduated from university; and for those in their 40 s, 58.3% had graduated from university.
Ranks also increased with age. Of subjects in their 20 s and 30 s, most were constables (84.7% and 45.1%, respectively); of subjects in their 40 s, 47.2% were lieutenants and 47.2% were sergeants; of subjects over 50, 98.1% were lieutenants (Table 1).
Table 1
General Characteristics of Subjects
Variable
|
20-29yrs
|
30-39yrs
|
40-49yrs
|
≥ 50yrs
|
Marital state
|
|
|
|
|
Married
|
3(5.1)
|
61(50.0)
|
34(94.4)
|
51(98.1)
|
Single
|
56(94.9)
|
61(50.0)
|
2(5.6)
|
1(1.9)
|
Monthly income
|
|
|
|
|
≥ 4 million won
|
0(0.0)
|
1(0.8)
|
9(25.0)
|
32(61.5)
|
3–4 million won
|
0(0.0)
|
17(13.9)
|
24(66.7)
|
19(36.5)
|
2–3 million won
|
48(81.4)
|
96(78.7)
|
3(8.3)
|
1(2.0)
|
< 2 million won
|
11(18.6)
|
8(6.6)
|
0(0.0)
|
0(0.0)
|
Education level
|
|
|
|
|
University
|
23(39.0)
|
76(62.3)
|
21(58.3)
|
17(32.7)
|
College
|
3(5.1)
|
16(13.1)
|
8(22.2)
|
12(23.1)
|
High school
|
33(55.9)
|
30(24.6)
|
7(19.4)
|
23(44.2)
|
Police rank
|
|
|
|
|
Lieutenant
|
1(1.7)
|
5(4.1)
|
17(47.2)
|
51(98.1)
|
Sergeant
|
1(1.7)
|
15(12.3)
|
17(47.2)
|
1(1.9)
|
Corporal
|
7(11.9)
|
14(38.5)
|
1(2.8)
|
0(0.0)
|
Constable
|
50(84.7)
|
55(45.1)
|
1(2.8)
|
0(0.0)
|
Total
|
59(100.0)
|
122(100.0)
|
36(100.0)
|
52(100.0)
|
* Subjects are male police officers -Unit : Frequency (%) |
The distributions differed among the major variables. Resilience had a minimum (min) = 75, maximum (max) = 135, mean = 103.32, standard deviation (sd) = 10.59, skewness (skew) = 0.043, and kurtosis (kurt) = 1.597. The pain perception had min = 0, max = 85, mean = 25.27, sd = 18.60, skew = 0.581, and kurt = 2.701. Social support had min = 35, max = 85, mean = 56.53, sd = 9.90, skew = -253, and kurt = 2.276. PTG had min = 10, maximum = 75, mean = 44.56, sd = 12.46, skew = -0.504, and kurt = 2.069 (Table 2).
Table 2
Level of Descriptive statistics for Study Variables
Variable
|
Min-Max
|
M(SD)
|
Skewness
|
Kurtosis
|
Resilience
|
75–135
|
103.32(10.59)
|
.043
|
1.597
|
Pain
perception
|
0–85
|
25.27(18.60)
|
.581
|
2.701
|
Social
support
|
35–72
|
56.53(9.90)
|
− .253
|
2.276
|
Post-traumatic
Growth
|
10–75
|
44.56(12.46)
|
− .504
|
2.069
|
M = Mean value, (SD) = Standard Deviation |
None of the general characteristics showed differences in resilience.
The score of pain perception increased with age, from 17.92 in the 20 s age group, 23.51 in the 30 s, 32.83 in the 40 s and 32.52 in the 50 s or older. The score was 20.84 for single subjects and 28.84 for married subjects. Monthly income also affected pain perception: it was highest (31.57) in those who earned 4 million won per month, and the score of pain perception was the highest, compared to 18.16 in the 2–3 million income group. The score of pain perception generally increased with the rank of the police officer, and was highest in sergeants.
The score of social support decreased as age increased, from 60.83 in the 20 s to 52.88 in the 50 s or older. It was lower in married officers (55.33) than in single officers (58.03). The score of social support decreased as income increased. The rank was the highest in social support with 59.63 points in the lowest rank. The general characteristics had no significant differences on PTG (Table 3).
Table 3
Variables related to General Characteristics
Variable
|
Resilience
|
Pain
perception
|
Social
support
|
Post-traumatic
Growth
|
M(SD)
|
t or F(p)
|
M(SD)
|
t or F(p)
|
M(SD)
|
t or F(p)
|
M(SD)
|
t or F(p)
|
Age group
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
20-29yrs
|
105.86(9.90)
|
2.070(.105)
|
17.92(15.45)
|
8.760(< .001)
|
60.83(8.93)
|
7.566(< .001)
|
44.10(13.51)
|
.374(.772)
|
30-39yrs
|
103.43(10.98)
|
|
23.51(17.74)
|
|
56.83(9.83)
|
|
43.95(12.00)
|
|
40-49yrs
|
101.28(10.23)
|
|
32.83(19.83)
|
|
53.75(10.37)
|
|
45.58(14.03)
|
|
≥ 50yrs
|
101.60(10.31)
|
|
32.52(19.11)
|
|
52.88(8.99)
|
|
45.80(11.34)
|
|
Marital state
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Married
|
102.79(10.20)
|
929(.354)
|
28.84(19.47)
|
3.583(< .001)
|
55.33(9.94)
|
2.237(.026)
|
45.66(12.23)
|
1.620(.106)
|
Single
|
103.99(11.06)
|
|
20.84(16.49)
|
|
58.03(9.68)
|
|
43.19(12.66)
|
|
Monthly income
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
≥ 4 million won
|
101.33(9.18)
|
.641(.589)
|
31.57(15.44)
|
6.323(< .001)
|
52.67(8.62)
|
3.663(.013)
|
45.12(11.98)
|
1.173(.321)
|
3–4 million won
|
103.30(10.75)
|
|
31.07(21.23)
|
|
55.33(10.33)
|
|
46.75(12.78)
|
|
2–3 million won
|
103.26(10.58)
|
|
18.16(19.50)
|
|
58.32(11.48)
|
|
41.46(11.12)
|
|
< 2 million won
|
103.91(10.92)
|
|
22.05(17.16)
|
|
57.89(9.58)
|
|
43.91(12.60)
|
|
Education level
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
University
|
102.28(9.84)
|
1.067(.346)
|
28.46(20.95)
|
.670(.513)
|
54.44(10.79)
|
1.028(.359)
|
45.36(12.88)
|
.578(.562)
|
College
|
104.25(10.97)
|
|
24.71(18.37)
|
|
56.94(9.99)
|
|
45.09(11.89)
|
|
High school
|
102.40(10.31)
|
|
24.76(17.95)
|
|
56.81(9.36)
|
|
43.44(13.16)
|
|
Police rank
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lieutenant
|
102.29(11.02)
|
17.768(.154)
|
30.59(21.55)
|
12.331(< .001)
|
55.47(11.13)
|
6.723(< .001)
|
46.29(13.98)
|
.993(.397)
|
Sergeant
|
101.53(9.79)
|
|
33.41(18.11)
|
|
53.38(8.99)
|
|
45.74(11.66)
|
|
Corporal
|
103.07(11.49)
|
|
24.91(18.48)
|
|
55.45(9.40)
|
|
42.43(11.70)
|
|
Constable
|
105.04(10.38)
|
|
18.08(15.01)
|
|
59.63(9.58)
|
|
44.28(12.87)
|
|
M = Mean value, (SD) = Standard Deviation, t = t statistics – Independent t-test, F = F statistics – ANOVA, p = significant level’s for p value, reject of null hypothesis level is p > .05 |
Resilience and pain perception were inversely correlated with the main variables, and social support and PTG were positively correlated with them (Table 4).
Table 4
Correlations among Variables
Variable
|
Resilience
r (p)
|
Pain
Perception
r (p)
|
Social
Support
r (p)
|
Post-traumatic
Growth
r (p)
|
Resilience
|
1
|
|
|
|
Pain
perception
|
− .318(< .001)
|
1
|
|
|
Social
support
|
.586(< .001)
|
− .280(< .001)
|
1
|
|
Post-traumatic
Growth
|
.223(< .001)
|
.239(< .001)
|
.200(< .001)
|
1
|
Pearson Correlation Coefficient Analysis, r = Pearson Correlation Coefficient |
p = significant level’s for p value, reject of null hypothesis level is p > .05 |
The effects of general characteristics and measured factors on PTG were analyzed using multiple regression analysis, and then expressed as radial graphs (Fig. 1–4).
The significant factors differed among the age groups. In subjects in their 20 s, resilience was the largest factor that affected PTG (B = 0.570), followed by pain perception (B = 0.243); social support did not have a significant effect. In subjects in their 30 s, only pain perception affected PTG (B = 0.249). In subjects in their 40 s, none of the factors had a significant effect on PTG. In subjects over 50, social support was the most significant factor for PTG (B = 0.488), followed by pain perception (B = 0.252).